Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attacks on the Electoral College Gain Momentum
National Review Online ^ | 06/24/2010 | Tara Ross

Posted on 06/23/2010 9:12:23 PM PDT by OldDeckHand

You won’t hear about it in the mainstream media, but the Electoral College is on the verge of being eliminated. One important legislative vote could occur Thursday. Two others could occur in the upcoming days and weeks.

A California-based group, National Popular Vote, is lobbying hard for a dangerous piece of anti-Electoral College legislation. My NRO article on the mechanics of the legislation is here. Five states have already approved NPV, but now three additional states are dangerously close to joining them: Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York. Another trio of state legislatures approved the scheme, but their governors vetoed the plan. These latter states remain important; a reasonable argument can be made that the gubernatorial vetoes are irrelevant.

If each of these states is counted, NPV could have as many as 169 electoral votes in favor of its plan. It needs 270. NPV has come startlingly close to success even as most Americans remain completely unaware that the presidential-election process is so close to being turned on its head.

The American presidential-election system is a unique blend of federalism and democracy, combining purely democratic state-level elections with a national election among the states. The practical effect of this system is that a candidate can’t win unless he appeals to a wide variety of voters around the nation. NPV’s plan tries to keep the democratic portions of the election, even as it strips the system of its federalist aspects. It fails, instead managing to lose both.

(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; electoral; presidential; system
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last
It's not the most easily understood piece, but essentially there's a special interest movement afoot to subvert the Electoral Process absent a Constitutional Amendment.

It's some disturbing stuff, and even more worrisome is no one in the MSM is covering it.

1 posted on 06/23/2010 9:12:34 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

So, if zerO wins the Electoral College, but loses the popular vote, will this still be a major movement?


2 posted on 06/23/2010 9:15:32 PM PDT by reformedliberal ("If it takes a blood bath, let's get it over with." R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
The commies are at work subverting the Constitution.
3 posted on 06/23/2010 9:15:36 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If they ditch the Electoral College, they may as well lock me up because I would take to the streets raising some major L.


4 posted on 06/23/2010 9:16:08 PM PDT by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

It works until the food producing states (and California’s Central Valley) decide that it is no longer useful to to give their production to leeches.


5 posted on 06/23/2010 9:16:52 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Every time the dems get scared, they attack the Electoral College.


6 posted on 06/23/2010 9:17:18 PM PDT by doc1019 (Rush, Beck and others are giving us the dots; it is up to us to connect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

They are at it 24/7.


7 posted on 06/23/2010 9:18:41 PM PDT by Kahuna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution should be in play, here....


8 posted on 06/23/2010 9:19:17 PM PDT by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
If they succeed we will become a democracy, the worst government system ever devised!
9 posted on 06/23/2010 9:24:57 PM PDT by dalereed (in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

“Every time the dems get scared, they attack the Electoral College.”

We’re on the precipice where the parasites outnumber the producers. Nothing would please the left more than to have everything decided only by popular vote.

I don’t know about you, but I’m making my “going Galt” plans. Just in case.


10 posted on 06/23/2010 9:25:11 PM PDT by Tigerized (pursuingliberty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
LAttacks on the Electoral College Gain Momentum

There is no honest way to pretend that changes in the Electoral College should not require a constitutional amendment. Any attempts to do it otherwise will be some form of power grab.

11 posted on 06/23/2010 9:27:08 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

This would be a disaster to go to the popular vote, instead of the electoral college. If that was the case, you could just get the vote in the ten largest cities in the country and win the election ... hoo-boy!


12 posted on 06/23/2010 9:27:50 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

bookmark.


13 posted on 06/23/2010 9:29:28 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigerized

Obama will just nullify the Electoral College with an executive order. That seems to be his style.


14 posted on 06/23/2010 9:29:59 PM PDT by doc1019 (Rush, Beck and others are giving us the dots; it is up to us to connect them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Will88; stylin19a
"There is no honest way to pretend that changes in the Electoral College should not require a constitutional amendment. "

This is how it's described by the organization that is putting this farce together..

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

I don't know how this could be described as anything other than subversion. The states (in this instance, the leftist elements of the state legislatures) are getting together to create extra-constitutional agreements to specifically undermine a constitutional provision.

15 posted on 06/23/2010 9:32:14 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Will88
You were saying ...

There is no honest way to pretend that changes in the Electoral College should not require a constitutional amendment. Any attempts to do it otherwise will be some form of power grab.

The Electoral College would still work the same way as far as their votes for the President and the Electoral College votes being turned in at a certain time and certified by Congress. That wouldn't change. That's the part that would require some kind of Contsitutional Amendment in order to change it. It's not being changed.

BUT, the part that would change, which would make the Electoral College useless, and simply "going through the motions" and nothing more than that -- is when the individual states divide their Electoral College votes up between the candidates and give each candidate a "share" of the vote instead of just one candidate taking the entire state.

NOW... that part -- does not take a Constitutional Amendment -- so they're doing an "end-run" around the guts of the issue by doing what doesn't require an Amendment and makes it "useless" ...

16 posted on 06/23/2010 9:33:03 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

0bama must be in trouble if they are bringing this crap up again. You never hear about “problems” wit the Electoral College as long as Democrats win.


17 posted on 06/23/2010 9:35:00 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88; stylin19a

I would add, this additionally subverts the Constitution because it’s not even requiring that 3/4ths of the States (as prescribed by the Constitution) ratify changes to these de facto changes to the Constitution. It’s just requiring that they get 270 of 538 electoral votes.


18 posted on 06/23/2010 9:36:35 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
My question is who is paying for this movement? Soros?
19 posted on 06/23/2010 9:37:08 PM PDT by Redak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Yup, Article 1 Section 10’s Compact clause clearly applies. Even before considering this as an extra-constitutional bypass of the amendment process this is clearly null and void absent congressional approval even if all 50 states individually passed such.


20 posted on 06/23/2010 9:46:16 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (Tear down that BARACK-ade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Redak
"My question is who is paying for this movement? Soros? "

That's a good question. Unfortunately, it's a 501c(4), not a 501c(3). As such, they are not required by law to make their donor list publicly available.

Because they engage in a plainly political endeavor, I'm not entirely sure how they qualify as a 501c(4). I'm not very well versed in campaign finance laws. Perhaps someone else could explain.

21 posted on 06/23/2010 9:46:20 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; All

Actually, it is covered under Article II, Section I of the Constitution - and states are allowed to choose their electors in any manner they please ...

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

This is DANGEROUS !!! I live in MD and they have already passed this bill. If enough states [totalling 270 electoral votes] pass this legislation, the MD law becomes active. It works like this:

No matter who wins in the state of MD, all of its electoral votes will be cast for the winner of the National Popular Vote [NPV]. So, if the GOP wins MD [not damn likely], MD’s votes would go to the DEM [if he wins the NPV].

This will lead to major campaigning in ONLY the states with the biggest populations: CA, FL, MA, MI, NY, IL, IN, OH, PA, TX, etc.


22 posted on 06/23/2010 9:46:41 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

The Seventeenth Amendment has already brought us too close to that precipice. It should be repealed, along with the Sixteenth.


23 posted on 06/23/2010 9:49:23 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Leftist power forever. That’s all that most leftists care about.


24 posted on 06/23/2010 9:52:10 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (If leftist legislation that's already in place really can't be ended by non-leftists, then what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Here isa link to the site of the National Popular Vote
if anyone is interested

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php


25 posted on 06/23/2010 9:53:21 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

And the Acorn/SEIU ballot stuffing and rampant voter fraud in cities like Chicago get counted the same as those votes in honest states/cities.

It’s not democracy, it’s worse.


26 posted on 06/23/2010 9:55:00 PM PDT by mike-zed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102; OldDeckHand; Redak

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/about.php

Advisory Board
John Anderson (R-I–IL)
Birch Bayh (D–IN)
John Buchanan (R–AL)
Tom Campbell (R–CA)
Tom Downey (D–NY)
D. Durenberger (R–MN)
Jake Garn (R–UT)

Endorsements

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/organizations/endorsements.php

Organizational Endorsements
Asian American Action Fund
Common Cause
FairVote
Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
NAACP
National Latino Congreso
National Black Caucus of State Legislators
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
US PIRG
Public Citizen
Sierra Club

Legislative Sponsors or have cast recorded votes in favor

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php

Click to see individual states:

Arkansas
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=AR
California
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=CA
Colorado
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=CO
Hawaii
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=HI
Illinois
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=IL
Maryland
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=MD
Maine
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=ME
Montana
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=MT
North Carolina
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=NC
North Dakota
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=ND
New Jersey
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=NJ
Rhode Island
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=RI
Vermont
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=VT
Washington
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/voteyes_10per.php?s=WA

The last time I heard such a fuss over the Electoral College was in late 2000.


27 posted on 06/23/2010 9:55:06 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster!

The last worst Amendment was Amendment #17 of 1913, wherein the Constitution was amended to have the states’ Senators to be elected by a popular vote, replacing the Constitution’s Senators appointment by the state legislatures.

We already had a popular house of Congress, The House. The Framers had it right in having the State legislatures voting on whom they picked for their two senators, in staggered 6 year terms.

Thus, the Framers had the House composed of two year popular vote winners, yet, the six year Senate members were supposed to represent State Rights. A senator could be recalled at the will of the state if he voted against the issues important to the state legislature.

After the 1913 amendment, we have two popularity voted legislatures, one set for two years, the other set for 6 years - with no-one representing the states’s rights, just a bunch of politicians trying to suck as much cash out of the Federal system as earmarks will allow.

No more legislative branch checks and balances - the people of the states choose who represents them, regardless of qualifications.

Now the liberals are trying to erode all the checks and balances the Framers placed within the Constitution for the executive branch.

We used to have a great governance, the Constitution. Now it’s been eroded, slated to be eroded in the future.

Maybe after a few more years of Zer0, there will be direct election of the Supreme Court.

Then maybe the Muzzies will be able to reorganize under Sharia law!


28 posted on 06/23/2010 9:55:49 PM PDT by Noob1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

That is a broad statement and very problematic in this regard. But, I don’t know how this could be described as anything other than a compact. The law is clear and has been upheld by SCOTUS in at least two key decisions, compacts MUST be approved by Congress.


29 posted on 06/23/2010 9:57:36 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
It works until the food producing states (and California?s Central Valley) decide that it is no longer useful to to give their production to leeches.

Who you calling leaches? Farmers are the biggest welfare queens known to man. There isn't a farm in the country that would be in the black without government subsidies. Food is just like any other commodity - if you don't want to grow it in Iowa there is no problem growing it in Mexico, Brazil, etc. The only change consumers will notice is lower cost.

30 posted on 06/23/2010 10:05:58 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Irenic
"If they ditch the Electoral College, they may as well lock me up because I would take to the streets raising some major L."

I would think it would take an Ammedment to change the Electoral Process.

31 posted on 06/23/2010 10:09:21 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
I would think it would take an Ammedment to change the Electoral Process.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment to allow us to have a President who isn't a natural born citizen, but the lack of one hasn't stopped the current "occupant" BO or those who supported him on his journey there.

32 posted on 06/23/2010 10:15:37 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Will88

We have no Constitution. Anything that’s unenforced is, for all practical purposes, non-existent.

Obama is an ineligible president who is ruling by executive order in order to bypass all the due process, separation of powers, checks and balances, and rule of law that we Americans know and love. The coup has already happened.


33 posted on 06/23/2010 10:19:58 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I hope things still work as they’re supposed to.

I just don’t know any longer, I’ve lost trust.


34 posted on 06/23/2010 10:19:58 PM PDT by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
It will take an amendment and the chances of an amendment passing get better every year. I would suspect the electoral college will last no more than twenty years...
35 posted on 06/23/2010 10:22:37 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You are absolutely right. Now the question is, are thsoe who are capable of reversing this going to do anything about it, or just march to the slaughterhouse submissively?


36 posted on 06/23/2010 10:32:07 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

My Govenor Schwanegger (Ca) vetoed this bill so Calif is not a part of this at this time although the legislature which is controlled by the Democrts and if Jerry brown wins
election this fall I suspect this bill will come back and he will sign it. I checked Illinois and Blagovich did sign it into law I suspect anywhere there is a Democrat Govenor this law will be enacted in that state


37 posted on 06/23/2010 10:46:54 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I’m not so sure this would work to the Right’s disadvantage. We start every election with the electoral votes of California and New York pretty much lost. There are a LOT of Republicans in Orange County, the Central Valley, and upstate New York. This would give them a real voice in the election. Much easier for the Republicans to pick up votes here than it is for the Dems to scratch up votes from two dozen scattered, heterogeneous, reliably red states.


38 posted on 06/23/2010 10:47:42 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
When asked what she thought about abolishing the Electoral College former First Lady, Senator and current Secretary of State said: "Wyoming will never go for it."
39 posted on 06/23/2010 10:53:12 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
There is a huge Constitutional difference between the state legislature setting rules on how to choose Electors; and the state legislature telling those duly elected Electors how to vote.

OTOH, it may set a precident, whereby the People require thier "representatives" to actually cast their votes as directed by those same PEOPLE. Yeah, I know: fat chance.

40 posted on 06/23/2010 11:14:09 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tigerized

“We’re on the precipice where the parasites outnumber the producers.”

That is so true, I think we may have reached that point all ready. It seems like the Bush years were spent fighting the war, and while we weren’t watching our country was taken over by lazy, commie dorks. The 2010 election will be very interesting because most parasites only pay attention during the big elections. I think if the Republicans can only come up with a -5 to + 5 margin in the house, this country is lost forever. I really believe that! My kids will live in a country 20 years from now that is only slightly better than South Africa. Republicans must take the house by a solid margin and force Obama to stop the invasion on our southern border.


41 posted on 06/23/2010 11:17:29 PM PDT by Paddy Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You’ll need an amendment.

Unless of course, you want to ignore the Constitution which seems to be the way our government is currently going....


42 posted on 06/23/2010 11:18:31 PM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
You're missing the Article I Section 10 nuance.

You are correct that a state can choose its OWN method of selecting electors.

However, the COMPACT that says that the state's method is contingent on other states in the COMPACT also agreeing to abide by the rules constitutes a compact among states that is in violation of Article I Section 10.

States can act individually. They cannot gang up on other states.

-PJ

43 posted on 06/23/2010 11:31:57 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
This is why I take every opportunity to remind people we are a Republic, not a Democracy. We have representatives in all our decisions, not a direct vote. I was taught that democracy means mob rule. It sounds foreign to me to say we are a democracy. It's sort of a pet peeve of mine.

If we don't remind people that we are a Republic, they may forget. When people say Gore won the popular vote, I have a puzzled look on my face and say,... "So?" That has nothing to do with who will be president.

44 posted on 06/23/2010 11:45:15 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

angry ping


45 posted on 06/24/2010 3:02:52 AM PDT by maine yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

come on ... how did this obama guy get “ elected “ ? ... is he really in charge ? and who the frig is he ? this is just a joke ... right ?


46 posted on 06/24/2010 4:17:49 AM PDT by bajasurfer2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
If enacted, the NPV bill would create an interstate compact among consenting states. Each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

That from the author's link to her previous article on this subject:

I think that scheme is clearly unconstitutional. The Electoral College gives each state a presidential vote for each senator and house member they have. A main purpose, or probably the main purpose, of the EC is to preserve the philosophy that underlies the allocation of seats in Congress: that representation should be part based on population, and part based on location/regional/state interests. The House is based on population, and the Senate is based on unique state interests.

The EC was intended to reflect that same weighting of interests and power as is reflected in the allocation of seats in Congress. Any scheme to get around that and make presidential elections purely a popular vote should definitely be unconstitutional. Their scheme eliminates the constitutionally mandated weighting of power.

If they wanted to cast two electoral votes for the winner of their state's popular vote, then allocate the rest based on how many votes each candidate got in their state, that would probably be constitutional. But casting a state's votes based on how the national popular vote went is nonsense, and is clearly intended to skirt the weighting requirement in the constitution. If every state did that, then the candidate with the most popular votes would receive 100% of the electoral votes.

47 posted on 06/24/2010 5:37:39 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
NOW... that part -- does not take a Constitutional Amendment --

I think it would require an amendment, as I discussed in #47. And if this from the author's link to another of her articles is accurate, then the whole thing seems like a flimsy and amateurish attempt to subvert the constitution. But that doesn't mean there aren't enough political hacks in black robes to approve it:

If enacted, the NPV bill would create an interstate compact among consenting states. Each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

That's nonsense, and is clearly intended to eliminate the weighting of power among the total population and the states mandated by the constitution for both Congress and the EC.

48 posted on 06/24/2010 5:46:54 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
"I’m not so sure this would work to the Right’s disadvantage. "

I'm not sure it would necessarily give anyone a particular advantage. In almost 240 years, we've only had a person win the popular vote (allegedly) and lose the Electoral College vote. That's not necessarily why I'm so opposed to it.

I think the Constitution matters. If these people want the national vote to be the controlling (and sole) vote to elect presidents, then let them do it the way the Constitution was intended to be amended and not this clearly extra-constitutional circus that they're attempting.

Lastly, and more to your direct point, I do think that this would lead to even more corruption and ballot box stuffing in the larger cities, than even we see now. With the exception of TX, the states with the biggest cities almost always vote Democrat - NY, CA, IL, MA. The union thugs are strongest in these cities, and as you might expect, election fraud is worst in these cities. If this was enacted, I think it's possible that you would see more votes cast in those cities, than there are people who actually live there. It's a recipe for fraud and unscrupulous behavior.

49 posted on 06/24/2010 7:42:31 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance
"Wyoming will never go for it."

Very true.

300,000,000/50 = 6,000,000 average population per state.

And no state with much less the 6,000,000 population would go for it, and that is a big bunch of states. Probably more than half, if someone wants to do the research.

Every state with less than the average population is, to varying degrees, overrepresented in the Senate and the Electoral College, just as the founders intended, and this was a necessary compromise to form the union in the first place.

People forget that. That states formed the union, not the other way around.

50 posted on 06/24/2010 8:01:50 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson